It is already happening, at least with legislators.
School lunches and New York trying to ban salt are two examples.
Another no nicotine hiring policy
- Thread starter pianoguy
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
-
- Tags
- revolution
- Status
School lunches and New York trying to ban salt are two examples.
BTW...if anybody needs their thread numbers increased DRASTICALLY, gimme a call. I can pretty much guarantee a HUGE influx of new posts on ANY thread with my name in it as a poster...no matter HOW old the original thread happens to be.
My first post here was #25...that was only two hours ago. The post immediately prior to mine was on 1/15/2012.
My first post here was #25...that was only two hours ago. The post immediately prior to mine was on 1/15/2012.
Last edited:
ATTENTION EVERYBODY CONCERNED- The fact that I am new on ECF doesn't mean that I know NOTHING about ANYTHING, especially since the advent of modern information technologies. I am a veteran smoker AND vaper, as well as a REAL VETERAN of the United States Navy (and not because of the number of posts I made there). The fact that I'm new to the ECF simply means that I have a JOB, that until I was recently diagnosed and started treatment for THROAT CANCER, left no time for forums.
Last edited:
This all started a long time ago when they started doing credit checks in a market crash. I lost my house. That means I cant get a job too? Now that the jobs are few and everyone is looking they can afford to pick and choose anyway they want. If it had anything to do with race or gender then its another story, yet they get away with that all the time as well. What can we do about it?
Nothing. They make it up as they go along. Just the way it is these days...and WE as voters let them.
Well that makes no sense. We let them, yet we can do nothing? So if it starts at the top then maybe we should look into the votes we have been making in general. Why do we seem to keep voting for people that hurt us? Think about this for a minute. Some how the people we vote in are always for the 1% yet the majority of the 99% still vote for them. Nothing ever changes that way and only gets worse. When will we learn to stop letting other people influence us? We have more tools then ever before yet we just vote for media stars, looks, and who has the slickest tongue. Most people dont even know who RP or BR are. Whats sad to me is that no one will take the time to make sure such a important decision is at least a half way good one. Instead I hear things like "well he has the best chance to win". Or "he was the lesser of two evils". What about the correct vote for the other guy????
Well that's what we can do and it kills me so many wont. So since it starts at the top then maybe we should stop the insanity. We are the foundation and we are crumbling, all the while complaining that we cant do anything about it. The answer is right in front of us every 4 years, but we only see whats put in front of us instead of looking around. Spend the same time you do complaining to look at other candidates and your set. No offense I know its harsh but no one listens to reason as much, then when u light a fire. We have a lot on the line.
Americans Elect 2012 | The first direct presidential nomination
I don't think that we intentionally vote for people (or policies) that hurt us, us much as that statistically, many people of voting age in America don't vote..."too busy", or "my vote doesn't matter" mentality.
Please check my facts on Google.
From http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_percentage_of_eligible_Americans_vote "According to Voting and Registration Data - US Census 2008, the United States of America voter turnout was 58%. Actually the number varies widely depending on whether it is a Presidential election, national mid-term election, state or local election or primary."
Remember how huge the '08 election and media exposure was?
Last edited:
Well as of about a week ago statistics show 30% for OB and about 30% for ROM. That alone shows they expect 59% of 99%ers to make a bad vote. The other 40% are the "naysayers". That brings a couple things into light. 59% can still make a bad vote but if the naysayers all voted for one of the other two candidates then we are golden. 40% would beat out the other 2 at 30% each.
Also says that if the 59% would wake up we have no chance of them sneaky 1%ers fudging the numbers so bad that people would not notice. Its up to us. I am voting for the first time ever cause I decided to wake up and think for myself. I admit I was the naysayer. Knowing what I have learned in recent years its just not smart to let others vote for you or let your vote be swayed by others as well. If we look, listen, and learn we would all see what I see.
nobody freak out...i've been assured by my e.n.&t. and endocrinologists that my particular form of cancer (thyroid) is not related to smoking. just wanted to let some folks know that i have done a little research on many of the topics covered on the ecf.
Greatest country in the world. Greatest soldiers protecting it. Sickening how lobbyists and special interests run it. Pathetic how our government runs us.....
this whole "issue" is just one more bullet in the arsenal of post-economic-crash employers (gov't and otherwise) so they don't get sued for refusing to hire a particular person...one that they probably wouldn't hire anyway. But now they have "medical evidence" that nicotine is bad for you. (like we didn't already know that), and it can be detected through means similar to drug testing (if you vape nicotine, it's in you). in other words, if they don't want you, they can claim that it's because you are a nicotine user, and tout the very "facts" that i posted earlier - http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/fo...-no-nicotine-hiring-policy-3.html#post6167655. (you know, the ones that blew this thread up?)
Last edited:
*off topic for just a sec*
i just noticed that i'm now a "senior member"...what does that mean and do i get a cookie or something?
i just noticed that i'm now a "senior member"...what does that mean and do i get a cookie or something?
I"m curious- what' the medical evidence you speak of Rick that Nicotine is actually harmful?
...oh and don't send me to the Mayo link- it proved absolutely nothing to me.
...oh and don't send me to the Mayo link- it proved absolutely nothing to me.
RickHerron said:
The article very cleverly misleads the reader. They mention that dopamine makes you "feel good" and then mention that the "dopamine boost is part of the addiction process." Think about that for a minute. When you think about drugs making you "feel good" and that the drugs are "addictive", doesn't it sound as if they are talking about folks with the dopey smiles, mouths hanging open, perhaps sitting in the corner of an alley with a needle hanging out of one vein?
Yes, I'm saying is that their choice of words (i.e. playing the "pleasure" card) was carefully calculated to make you believe that using nicotine is NO DIFFERENT from using the illegal drugs that impair people's memory, attention, concentration, physical reaction time, and judgment.
However, dopamine doesn't impair these things. Lack of dopamine can impair these functions--as you may have noticed.
John Hughes, a researcher at the University of Vermont, has stated that euphoria (intense pleasure) is only reported by about 10% of tobacco users. So the pleasure factor plays a much smaller role in addiction to nicotine than it does in addiction to illicit drugs.
When you read "regulate mood and behavior", what did you interpret the word "regulate" to mean? I'll bet they hoped you would think of the first definition: "to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc." But in the context of te body's processes, the actual meaning is closer to one of the definitions below:
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.
So no, I would not imagine that a substance that regulates mood and behavior "might be of some concern to an employer." Why would they want to hire someone whose moods and behavior are unregulated?
Yet for some of us, giving up nicotine disregulates our mood and behavior, making us much less qualified for the job. So it's a real Catch-22 for people with cognitive or mood impairments. They wouldn't want us as employees if the impairments are present, but they refuse to hire us if they detect that we are self-medicating with nicotine.
Last edited:
Btw, my friend works for this organization- he vapes on one of my Reos occasionally but is deathly afraid he'll be found out- why? He works for a "tobacco free" organization that "drug tests" their employees periodically for nicotine. Read the very fine print on one of their web pages - it's at the very bottom indicating they are a tobacco free organization. My friend said that if he tested positive for nicotine he would be fired. Folks, it's not as uncommon as you might think.
Cherokee Health Systems - Together...Enhancing Life
Cherokee Health Systems - Together...Enhancing Life
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
